Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/637

 ensues QQQQQQQHQ§QQQH The Editor’s Bag lE'IJ‘LE (3P: HOUSE OF GOVERNORS ACTS WITH UNDUE HASTE T

IS unfortunate that the third annual Conference of the House of Governors should have furnished

prejudiced and somewhat puerile action of the Conference served to indicate. The state rights theory is not in need of so boisterous a vindication as the Con ference gave it. There have been no decisions of the United States Supreme

ground for any suspicion that the chief

Court crippling the rights of the states,

function of this body may be to antago nize the federal Government and to at‘ tack the methods of the federal Supreme

nor is there any ground for the fear that the Supreme Court will not act dispass ionately in protecting the states from any undue extension of federal power over the commerce within their borders. Judge Sanborn in the Minnesota Rate

Court.

If the principal mission of the

House of Governors is to champion the cause of state rights, in the face of sup posed encroachment by national agencies, it can have so little usefulness that it had better be abolished. If on the other hand it is to take a proper view of its functions, as a body representing citizens of the United States, subject to its laws,

and is to take steps to co-operate for the promotion of the collective welfare of the states, for the realization of ideals which a union of states may legitimately

entertain, its opportunities for useful service to the American people are un

bounded. The recent Conference was marred by

a partisanship which led the members to forget the legitimate objects of their organization. The serious and impor tant work awaiting the attention of the Conference, in outlining beneﬁcent proj ects of legislation and administration, while not entirely thrust aside, was rele gated to a position of minor importance. Chief attention was focussed upon an issue not without a certain importance of its own, but of farless moment than the

cases (Shepard v. Northern Pac. Ry.,

184 Fed. 765) gave expression to a very moderate doctrine. said:

This is what he

"The nation may regulate interstate fares and rates and all interstate commerce. To the extent necessary completely and effectually to protect the freedom of, and to regulate interstate com merce, but no further, it may, by its Congress and its courts, effect and regulate intrastate commerce. To the extent that it does not sub stantially burden or regulate interstate commerce, a state may regulate intrastate commerce and the fares and rates therein within its borders, but no further, It may enforce regulations of intrastate commerce and its fares and rates which only inci dentally or remotely affect interstate commerce. But state laws, orders and regulations concem

ing intrastate commerce, or the fares or rates therein, which substantially burden or regulate interstate commerce, or the fares or rates therein, are beyond the powers of the state, and unconsti

tutional and void. And where the attempted exercise of the power of a state to regulate intra state commerce, or the attempted exercise of any of its other powers impinges upon or conﬂicts with the constitutional power of the nation to protect the freedom of, and to regulate, interstate